Re: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)

>  >
>Hi
>
>Are people really going to want to play games where they are outpointed
5:1?

If their victory conditions (mission objectives) are approximately 5 
times as easy to achieve, I don't see a problem!  ;-)

As someone else commented last night, it would make folks bring more 
balanced fleet compositions to pick-up games, because they don't know 
if they will suddenly find they have to fight a (limited-objective) 
engagement with only their little ships...... if they've brought a 
munchkinised fleet, then they may get lucky with the mission draw but 
will more likely get screwed.

Obviously, this isn't a system that will suit everyone - 
specifically, those who love their munchkinised fleets will hate it - 
but as the recent discussions of vector movement have shown, wee 
REALLY can't please all the people all the time!

>
>The Battlefleet gothic system have mission generators to define the 
>type of mission and then players agree a points value. (so that 
>people can use all of their ships if they want to).
>
>Also the mission system has subplots that include things like rescue 
>the spy on one ship in the enemies fleet, gain a bonus for killing a 
>particular ship etc.
>
>You could do this as an open mission or a secret mission with cards.

Yes, I thought more on this last night, and considered the idea of 
two card decks - one for the main mission objective, and then a set 
of "special" cards that each player draws one from - these would 
carry the special, odd or funny stuff like the "Crown 
Prince/Princess" subplot; a lot would actually be blank, some would 
make things more difficult for the player and some would give him 
some sort of small advantage.

>
>Some scenarios will nominate one player as the attacker and the 
>defender say in an assault on an installation. So you need to look 
>at how that might get factored in.

Split the mission cards into Offensive and Defensive missions? 
Players can pick (either by free choice or in some random 
determination) to play an Offence/Defence game or both Offensive (an 
interception/meeting engagement).

Jon (GZG)

>
>John
>
>
>>  From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
>>  >Gee, didn't I put that out there @ 10 (OMIGAWD) years ago?  I 
>>still have the
>>  >word doc, though the website is long gone.
>>  >
>>  >Mike Brown
>>
>>
>>  Quite likely, Mike, since the Seastrike version was from about 30
>>  years ago (mid 70s)... the idea has been around a long time.  ;-)
>>
>>  It's always been a favourite of mine, I've just never (yet) got
round
>>  to actually using it in a published product!
>>
>>  If you've still got the file, care to repost it?
>>
>>  Jon (GZG)
>>
>>  >
>>  >-----Original Message-----
>>  >From: gzg-l-bounces+mwsaber6=msn.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>  >[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+mwsaber6=msn.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] 
>>On Behalf Of
>>  >Ground Zero Games
>>  >Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:19 PM
>>  >To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>  >Subject: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)
>>  >
>>  >Just chipping in on the whole scenario/victory conditions issue, I
>>  >have always felt that one of the best systems (and a possible one
to
>>  >use "officially" for Ft in the future) is the randomly-drawn
scenario
>>  >card set-up, used to such good effect way back in "Seastrike" and
>>  >much copied since (notably in Brilliant Lances etc): each player
>>  >draws a card giving them a mission objective, a force level budget,
>>  >victory conditions and any special conditions attached.  The player
>>  >does not know what card his opponent has drawn.
>>  >
>>  >To use this sort of idea for FT, we could require each player to
>>  >bring along X CPV of ships of his choice; the force level given by
>>  >the objective card then specifies how much (as a %) of this force
he
>>  >can actually put on the table for the game - so 50% means not more
>>  >than 50% of the total fleet CPV, IN FULL SHIPS of course (so if
he's
>>  >put 60% of his points into one uber-dreadnought, he's stuffed -
it's
>>  >been recalled by Fleet Command, and he can only field the remaining
>  > >40% of smaller stuff!).
>>  >We might have cards ranging from "Major fleet attack - destroy or
>>  >drive off 50% of enemy ships, forces available 100%", right down to
>>  >"you have minimal forces available for a limited strike, objective
is
>>  >to destroy or cripple any ONE enemy ship of MASS 50 or greater (or
>>  >his largest ship if all below 50 mass), forces available 20%", plus
a
>>  >lot of others in between.....
>>  >Then, if you want to introduce odd variables like the "Crown Prince
>>  >is a junior officer on a CL, if you lose the ship he is on you lose
>>  >the battle", as a supplementary condition on a scenario card, then
>>  >that's fine - but you'll also have a main objective to fulfil, and
>>  >your opponent will have his own objective - if, in trying to
complete
>>  >his own mission, he happens to destroy that CL, that's the way it
>>  >goes. Of course, if you keep that one CL hanging back out of harm's
>>  >way, the opponent may well get suspicious and send a fast squadron
>>  >round your flank to pick it off.....  ;-)
>>  >
>>  >Jon (GZG)
>>  >_______________________________________________
>>  >Gzg-l mailing list
>>  >Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>  >http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>  >_______________________________________________
>>  >Gzg-l mailing list
>>  >Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>  >http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Gzg-l mailing list
>>  Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>  http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l